Talk:BioShock (series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gameplay" Section[edit]

Since this is the BioShock (series) page, and is not specific to the Rapture-based BioShock 1 & 2, it seems that the "Gameplay" section should be revised to reflect the fact that, although BioShock Infinite's gameplay is reported to involve similar mechanics to those found in BioShock 1 & 2, it will not be taking place in Rapture, and does not appear to involve the use of either Plasmids or ADAM. As such, I think that the language of this section should be redrafted in more general terms, removing references to aspects of the first two games that are not present in the third.TJShultz (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Fontain and Alpha Series[edit]

Yes, ADAM can cause psychosis in a user, but Fontain and the Alphas are excessively spliced. Fontain didn't have the chance to go crazy, and the Alpha's aren't even people any more. Plus, I should say this, but Jack already had been spliced prior to the game: he's 4 at the latest, so there's a chance he's immune to the side effects, but that's just speculation. Hope this clears things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.166.234 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention on ARG?[edit]

There's no mention of the Something in the Sea ARG that took place before Bioshock 2 was released. While it was a marketing thing, it did still have a (minor) impact on the Bioshock series as well as helped expand the lore of the world it takes place in. Should it be mentioned in the Wikipedia Article or should it simply be left out? 161.184.228.14 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the BioShock 2 article though somewhat in-between the lines. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings - how are we to judge??[edit]

A comparison with other games might be useful to see what rating numbers shown actually mean

Infinite's worse Metacritic calling the game boring still got an 80 (lowest) and add that to all the automatic 100s from a bunch of others its hard NOT to get score in 90s

Need examples of other games good and bad to see what little variance there is in these scores to help judge if they actually mean anything.

That wouldn't make sense, a score of, say, 85/100 means just that. Bringing up other games is just unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:BioShock which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing logo with free text image?[edit]

I think we can replace the current BioShock 1 logo with a free image of just the "BIOSHOCK" name in that font (Century Gothic Bold), since 1+2 both use this (Infinite doesn't for obvious reasons). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BioShock redirects[edit]

Hi @Masem:,

Because of your experiences editing the BioShock articles, I pinged you directly for input. I ran into a couple of redirects, not sure if they're useful. For Bioshizzle and Bioshizzle 2: when I look up "bioshizzle" in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get one result, which is a reaction by a reader. Concerning Bioshock Game Engine, "bioshock game engine" does not bring up any results, without apostrophes I get plenty though, but shouldn't that redirect to the engine used, in this case, Unreal Engine? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best I'm aware of, all three are useless redirects; the first two I've never seen in anything close to common use, and the latter is not its own thing (Bioshock uses Unreal, not a new engine). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've CfD'ed them all. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BioShock (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. And I suggest another pause of a year (at least) before this is revisited. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Per current video game naming guidelines. It's hard to argue that the first game is more notable than the entire series even if it is arguably the most notable in the series. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose The first game is clearly more notable than the series; it has a legacy of its own. (And the VG only suggest the series be non-disamb, but do not require it). --Masem (t) 19:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may have jumped the gun on this nomnation as I didn't notice the other ones. That said, Bioshock Infinite got a massive amount of reception, even if for less flattering reasons, and it also sold a tremendous amount. While not quite as impactful on video games, it still had a large impact.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't deny that BS2 and BSI got attention. But the amount of impact Bioshock has on the industry and beyond is huge, overshadowing either of the sequels easily in this regard. --Masem (t) 00:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Talk:BioShock#Requested move 25 May 2015 for the identical move request that failed to gain support in 2015. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And apparently at Talk:BioShock#Requested move 15 November 2016, the same move request failed to gain support again in 2016. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Masem and rationales in last two requests. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the neogaf rumor[edit]

We can't use sources from Neogaf or 4chan (or any other *chan). Information about future games must come from reliable sourcing, particularly if they are rumors on those games. That 2K has a project called "Parkside" as a working title going which is believed to be the next Bioshock game is well sourced. The name of that game, what it entails - not one iota except for your neogaf/4chan link. We cannot use that. (Also, by that link, it will just be called "Bioshock 3", not "Bioshock Parkside".) --Masem (t) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Input on organization[edit]

I'm working on updating and revamping this article. There's a lot of ways to organize series articles, and the structure of what goes where influences contents a bit, so looking for any opinions on table of contents-type organization. Given the themes/dystopian elements are similar between the games I've stuck them with the gameplay, a la Persona (series). Feels weird to have that stuff come before a list of the games itself, though? Also, many series articles lead with the games first, but I think the early development (especially as they start off as System Shock 2 successors and branch out from there) works better as an introduction to the topic as a whole. I'll keep plugging away, but thoughts or feedback appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that order is right. I would suggest that (particularly considering Bioshock Infinite's ending) that the theme section can be reduce a lot but focus on the general idea of free will versus control across the current 3 games (the rumored 4th may change all that, but that's a bridge to come to later), and then dig into the Objectivism aspects of BS1, the American Exceptionalism aspects of BI, etc. But that section can probably be trimmed down by at least half (since you borrowed from the respective pages) if not to 25% of its current size as a broad statement. That would also tie in from the prior main section on how its a SS spiritual successor. I'll take a shot at that Theme section though. --Masem (t) 18:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yeah, I haven't touched the themes section but it seems like it regurgitates stuff verbatim from the others so it can definitely be winnowed and focused. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a first runthrough on that. Left it super high level stuff. --Masem (t) 19:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Music of the BioShock series[edit]

CLOSED
merge is supported as per WP:Consensus. Merge proceeds on the basis of dropping the soundtrack listings, as supported below.--Whiteguru (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Administrative closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I'm working on the BioShock (series)#Music section here, I've noticed that the Music of the BioShock series basically only exists as track lists for the various releases. I'm not sure the scope of BioShock's music (given it's one composer and three games) really merits a separate article, particularly as I've been relatively unable to find reception for the releases themselves versus general music critiques, and much of the content is easily covered in the respective game articles (and currently already is, and don better.) Redirecting would only lose the track listings. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. I think we should take the approach that the film project does, that unless the released soundtrack can stand on its own with clear notability or can be documented in more depth (eg Music of the Final Fantasy VII series), then while we should document released soundtracks, the full soundtrack track listing is unnecessary, with exception when we're talking licensed songs that would provide relevant blue links. --Masem (t) 18:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BioShock_(series)&oldid=1206306164"